Share This:

It’s been nearly a month since I deleted all the ads from my site. Instead of pasting targeted distractions to my readers, I opted for simplicity. If readers wanted to support me, they could buy my book, donate, or share my work. Since then, an explosive dialogue surrounding the ethics and use of ad blockers has ensued. I decided to share my two cents on advertisers, marketing, and the “death of the web.”

Advertisers want us to believe that their commercials and banner ads inform us. They need us to consider their arguments, and think we’re making rational decisions in response. And they implant a picture of perfection – of what life could look like – with their products.

We’re supposed accept this bombardment of stimuli as the cost of accessing and reading websites. Go to The New York Times, and a slurry of ads feast over your metadata to predict what you might purchase next and serve up a healthy dose of consumerism. Behind the scenes, trackers surreptitiously soak up your browsing history, location, and personal data.

This is the cost of being a content consumer in the 21st century, and for years, we’ve accepted it. Until recently, when the entire Internet exploded in euphoria and vitriol over Apple’s new mobile operating system (iOS). It’s most recent update empowered users to install “content blockers,” which would effectively eliminate advertisements in the mobile browser.

As the browsing experience improves, profit revenue decreases. It’s a perfect inverse correlation. The web feels calmer without ads. I don’t have to be defensive and avert my eyes.

Over the last few weeks, publishers worldwide have clambered to their keyboards, predicting apocalypses. The Verge conducted a poll of its users, which found that 78% said “Yes” they will use an ad blocker. Without ad revenue, how will they survive?! If everyone turns off the ads, how will companies make money?

Publishers are already predicting that companies will cease to exist. One quote from PC Mag highlights the hyperbolic language: “With this move, users will eventually wonder why their favorite website died before finding another set of content to plunder.” Supposedly, a content pirate will kill sites left and right because of their ad blocker use.

Wired highlighted the plight of Google’s profits in an almost sympathetic tone: “Google depends almost entirely on ads for revenue. By one estimate, the giant may be losing billions of dollars from these kind of browser blocking extensions.” What will the massive, multinational corporation do without its record-breaking ad revenue?

Adding to the publisher outcries is The Verge’s Nilay Patel, who said ad blockers could mean the “Death of the web.” Then he added that “taking money and attention away from the web means that web innovation will slow to a crawl.” Wow! Death, as in ceasing to exist. That’s pretty extreme, right? Without ads, your computer literally would cease to surf – browsers would be pointless.

The problem with all this fear mongering is that it’s flawed. The web was not invented by corporate interests; rather, it was a governmental invention that became a public good. Advertising wasn’t part of the equation. Profit wasn’t the sole motivator to those who innovated in the early days of the Internet.

Even today, much of the web exists because of volunteers, governments, and public grants. Open source projects like Wikipedia, Ubuntu, and Firefox are perfect examples of how third-party ads needn’t be the sole source of innovation or income.

Interestingly, in this ad-infested web, major publishers have grown to bloated proportions. Many recycle other news outlets’ content and repackage it as their own. Companies like The Verge, Wired, and PC Mag occasionally publish top-notch journalistic pieces, but they’re most often caught up in quasi-advertisement “product reviews” and republishing. It’s lazy work to draw eyeballs, not critical thinking. To lose these companies would be awful, as I must admit I enjoy them, but we’d move on.

We’ve come to a crossroads as publishers and consumers. Should we put up with ads or use ad blockers? Should we accept distraction or simplicity? Should we keep the status quo or demand an alternative?

Some suggest paywalls, which force readers to subscribe for content. I can guarantee that circulation will drop immensely and many won’t pay (here’s looking at one of them). If it’s news, it’ll be printed somewhere else in a non-subscription form. And if it’s not reprinted, then it can’t be that important, can it? So, that idea’s gone.

Others promote the concept of paid articles. Many publishers have already experimented with advertiser-paid articles such as The New York Times and The Verge. Instead of reading a non-biased, semi-objective piece of journalism, readers have the distinct privilege of reading a lengthy advertisement. Again, everyone loses if the web destroys objectivity in journalism.

We live at a time of immense progress; ironically, technology is contending with these advances. Ad blockers censor and clean the web of the dirty bits. You no longer need to continually feel compelled to buy, buy, buy. Nor do pages deliver 20, 30, or 40+ trackers to your computer.

The rationale is clear: the web is better when it’s simpler. But questions remain about the sustainability of any company once their ad revenue dries up.

Here’s where I must be slightly callous. Frankly, capitalism is said to be flexible and adaptive. The invisible hand is supposed to morph and move with demand. There are companies constantly winning and losing in this roulette wheel of life – not everyone wins all the time. The companies that can successfully adapt to changing market forces… They’re the winners in this game.

Share This:

I woke up early this morning from a dream. In it, my brother and I were playing basketball. For some reason, he was dressed head to toe in a cheap Power Rangers outfit. As he helplessly tried to shoot the ball in the basket, his superhero mask would flop and fall in his face. It completely distracted him. At one point he tripped over himself when trying to make a shot. Frustrated, he continued to do the same thing without taking off the mask.

Then, my eyes opened. It was 5 AM and I couldn’t get back to bed. Something was restless inside me. With this newfound time, I decided to check the comments on Frugaling.

I saw a new one and eagerly read through it. The commenter said she had just read my book. She called it “interesting” and “inspirational.” I was flattered and humbled that she took the time to read my book, visit the site, and write a comment. But as I continued reading, I realized she was also writing a critique.

She was disappointed to see advertising on this site.

At first, like so many times in my life, I got defensive. Here’s what it sounded like in my head: “Who are you to tell me what I can and can’t put on my site? What would you do if you had five figures in debt and never wanted to live that way again? Google ads don’t even pay that well! It’s not liking I’m rolling in money because those little things.”

Was I being a hypocrite?
Was I not being true to my own values?
Was I living a lie?
Was I contributing to other people’s consumption by hosting ads?

The answers weren’t pretty: yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Sometimes commenters are dead wrong, confused, and/or seemingly typing while tripping on LSD. Those are easy to ignore. But challenging messages are usually my favorite. They force me to think and react – to qualify and justify my reasoning in life.

While not always right, I aim to do better. I look for these moments and embrace them.

This commenter had struck a chord with me. She highlighted something I’ve long wanted but waited to do: remove the advertisements. I’ve hesitated because income on Google ads has been enough to pay web hosting and domain name fees – basics for any website. Additionally, they’ve helped me pay for ancillary costs associated with running a business (i.e., extra tax help, software, etc.).

Those fees and costs remain. Until another company releases a completely free (of hidden costs and ads) domain names and hosting, it’s going to cost hundreds of dollars each year to run. But the advertisements cannot remain.

Today, I’m taking a risk and officially announcing that Frugaling is now free from ads! That means no pesky advertising trackers or Google boxes anywhere. Nothing will be adapting and changing to your buying/surfing habits. That’s the way it should be – void of third-party distractions that encourage people to spend more.

The Internet is chock full of advertisements predicting your next move, purchase, and trip. Rather than add to the noise, I want Frugaling to be an oasis. And my writings and website should host congruent values.

There are more ways to make an income than ads, and I’m hoping you agree. I no longer want to contribute to that system. I’m hoping you’ll help me in this ad-free endeavor. There are various ways to support me: share and spread your favorite articles, buy the new book, or make a donation.

It’s time to take off the distractions.

How do you feel when websites have ads?What do you think of authors who accept money to write stories?
How should writers make money?

Share This:

“Insanity in individuals is something rare – but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”
–Friedrich Nietzsche

Expensive things are expensive, not rare

Blast your headphones. Blare the bass. Feel the vibrations reverberate through your skull. There’s no limit with Beats by Dre. You’ll pull them off before you reach their volume limit. Plus, they come with a classy little “b” on the side. You can walk, sit, run, fly, drive, and stand while advertising your brand awareness. Flaunt your auditory know-how right on your head. Just don’t look at the price tag for these headphones. They’ll cost you about $200-300 for a pair, but only cost $14 to manufacture.

Feel that torque pulverizing your spinal cord like a belly flop gone amuck? Yeah, that’s the benefit of an expensive car. See the smoking tires as you peel away from that red light? Yeah, you’re burning precious fossil fuels and aiding the world on its campaign to melt the poles. How fast is your 0-60? Yeah, you’ll be the fastest around in the Ferrari LaFerrari. You get all this for the low price of $1.3 million. Get yours today — they’re rare!

Diamonds are a girl’s best friend; at least, that’s what the movies/commercials say! Save room on that ring finger for the biggest rock affordable. Whether questionably procured or straight-up from conflict zones, diamonds can be yours. Despite being hugely manipulated and controlled by oligopolies, you can find these at your local stone store. Supply is limited (by design)!

What makes something rare?

The definition of “rare” includes words like uncommon, unusual, and unusually great. Unfortunately, the word has been perverted into a capitalistic, pro-consumer line. The word’s true value has been emptied, cashed in, and abused by corporate giants. They’ve stolen the word – appropriating it for their own profits.

From art that puts a clever 1 of 100 (1/100) number on the bottom to limited-edition, gold-plated Apple Watches to limited-production Ferraris, we live in a world that finds rarity in everything. What an oxymoron – rarity in everything!

Perceptions are essential. Items of greater perceived rarity are lusted after and purchased for tremendous margins. We crave that which another cannot have.

The diamond industry artificially manipulates supply to affect perceived rarity. They buy up everything can they find, squash competition, and throttle a market. It’s entirely artificial.

We must re-evaluate rarity

We are struggling under a curling wave. The light is blotted out. Oxygen is low. And when we look up, we can’t tell if it’s the seabed or sky. Our senses have been manipulated for too long.

This is the hilarity of rarity: we experience vertigo to this perversion of rarity. Capitalism teaches a fundamental lesson: more expensive goods are “rare.” But we need to stop letting companies set the bar, agenda, and price of rarity. We need to empower ourselves, and destroy these twisted messages.

1. Rarity won’t be found in a material good

Take the aforementioned examples. Companies know how to frame a photo, pose a model, and sell you whatever they want. Material goods are not rare; in fact, they’re everywhere. The “rare” Ferraris are only a carefully constructed marketing ploy to make us buy more.

Let’s get fed up with this trickery. These companies are manipulating us. How long will we let them purposely confuse our natural understanding of rarity for their own gains? I say we end today.

2. Rarity won’t cost you a thing

It’s rare to see someone pull over in their car and stop for a lost dog. It’s rare to see someone sit next to a homeless person and hear his or her story. It’s rare for people to reflect on their privilege and be humbled. It’s rare to feel truly content with a career.

Unlike something with a price tag, these rarities are worth your time. By choosing to pursue life’s rarities rather than Apple Inc’s, you’ll suddenly realize what you were missing. It’s time we say goodbye to petty price tags and open our hearts to the people around us. Let’s make some rare moments, together.

3. Rarity won’t be advertised

Walk out your door, and you’re sure to encounter the walls and screens painted with advertisements. It’s sanitized and approved. It’s primped and primed. It’s made to make us buy.

Nothing advertised is needed. Think about it briefly, and you’ll realize you never see marketing campaigns for air and tap water (aside from clean air and water). Companies know that there aren’t profits in these basic resources – true needs. They’ve moved on to the unnecessary.

In the movement to re-evaluate rarity, we must carry this message with us every day: rarity won’t be advertised. Rarity is out in the world, away from this screen. Go make it happen.

Share This:

Photo: Angie Yates/Flickr

Free will: an American value

Free will is defined as, “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.” This concept — along with self-determination and willpower — are at the heart of America’s capitalism and democracy. Fundamentally, it’s the ability to choose actions without restrictions.

Americans tend to hold free will in high regard — whether you live here or not. When the system is working, people are working. When people are working, they should have increased free will. The mainstream message is that if you work hard, choose wisely, and are entrepreneurial, you will surely succeed.

How to envision another’s free will

Unfortunately, free will is a philosophically dense, nightmarish concept to swallow. The aforementioned dictionary definition doesn’t speak to the measurements of “one’s own discretion.”

For instance, what amount of free will does a…

North Korean have under a “supreme leader’s” rule have?

Child living in a physically and emotionally abusive household have?

Minority living in Ferguson, Missouri have?

Woman working on Wall Street have?

In each of these disparate examples, an individual has their free will impacted. The North Korean doesn’t have access to the Internet, controversial literature, and cannot speak in critique of their leader. The child living in an abusive household has no money, a small social network, and little experience (if any) experience escaping the oppressive household. The minority living in Ferguson, Missouri might feel coerced or pressured by the current police presence, and suffer from racial stereotypes in the workplace. The woman is in a world that’s eschewed the role of women, and frequently denigrates their intelligence and place in business.

Free will is not universal, but relative

Despite contrary evidence, America continues to trumpet free will as universal and absolute. You have it, and always have it no matter who or where you are — absolutely.

In reality, free will appears to be relative and on a spectrum. This means that the free will I experience day-to-day would differ based on location, if I was a different race, income class, etc. There is no absolute — only more or less.

At times, I’ve criticized the idea of free will because it’s frequently used to explain class and income differences. It can be used to blame people, instead of properly attributing individual and societal variables. The message goes something like this: “If they would just work harder, maybe they’d be more successful.”

Messages manipulate our free will, too

Recently, I wrote about refusing to be a “customer in training.” My argument was that IKEA’s powerful brand recognition and loyalty efforts affected my shopping decisions. Moreover, that being a child, exposed to IKEA’s lifestyle design affected my decisions as an adult.

One of the common complaints I heard from readers was that I was blaming the corporation for my own decisions — that I wasn’t taking responsibility for my actions. Essentially, the critical readers were suggesting that I had free will, and should know better — that I chose to purchase IKEA products (regardless of being exposed as a child). Rather than deny that claim, I hesitate to provide an answer to it, as I don’t have one.

Those in Western society are born with advertising everywhere. We never had the free will to say “no” to ads. We never had the free will to prevent magazines, TV shows, and billboards from advertising us at every waking moment. And now, many businesses (including this one) use advertising to supplement revenue that wouldn’t otherwise be there. I wouldn’t make a dime off my website and the time I spend would never be paid, if there weren’t ads.

Advertising works, too. People buy after seeing external messages. The industry is growing at epic proportions, and it’s hard to find an accurate number for the amount of money spent to advertise to consumers. What we do know is that research suggests people are tremendously affected by emotionally provocative marketing campaigns. Thus, companies will continue to advertise.

Financial free will isn’t real, until we do this…

Today, I urge you to question the concept of financial free will — that some have worked harder than others for wealth. If not for yourself, then for others who might not be as well off.

Recognize free will as relative and on a spectrum

We are born into a society with relative free will — on a spectrum of more or less — and we are targeted via advertisements to spend and/or “choose” one product over another. We are manipulated for dollars — in complete contrast to the ideals of free will.

Notice that successes and/or failures are both individual and societal

Additionally, it doesn’t do us any good to blame one’s failures or successes on pure individual free will, hard work, and entrepreneurism. Instead, we need to properly attribute the societal, cultural, and communal attributes that helped that individual accomplish their goals.

Develop a skepticism towards advertisements and external pressures

This can be tricky to accomplish. Advertisements are everywhere. Fortunately, you can reduce advertising messages by turning off the TV and downloading Internet ad blockers. Those two steps alone will prevent most of the messages from getting through. Remember that nothing truly necessary should need to be advertised. If it’s being advertised, it likely isn’t a necessity like air or tap water.

Provide equal opportunity to others

To truly have a functioning democracy, meritocracy, and informed electorate, a society must have strong health care, education, and living wages for all. As these needs are restricted, so are the dreams for future generations and social/income mobility. By providing these basic living standards, more people will succeed.